AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (44 comments)

  1. The question I have if being incorporated in the US why not move the incorporation of the holding company to Bermuda, for example. Leave an operating subsidiary in the US. I guess the big drawback is you can’t be in the S&P 500. If there was a major issue brought up, I would expect pressure from companies to change the S&P rule. There are a few companies such as Royal Dutch that were grandfathered into the index.
    Other than that which might or might not interfere with capital raising, what is the downside? Why did Apple not do this long ago?

  2. Seattle Sam

    Let’s see now. Apple figured out the tax code. The Senators who wrote it couldn’t.
    Next hearing: Why we should expect government to figure out Obamacare.

    1. morganovich

      sam, perhaps like obamacare, we need to pass the tax code to find out what’s in it.

      this seems like truly churlish congressional behavior.

      if you make the rules, you do not get to complain when people play by them.

      1. bajageoff

        I think Rand Paul had a point. Spare me the rest of the right wing crap about Obamacare. Please!

        1. I see you have missed the point – possibly due to your being busy jumping to a baseless conclusion.

        2. That’s right. The IRS is put in charge of administering Obamacare, but no, you’re right. Or perhaps you missed the ruling on Obamacare last year: Obamcare is a tax.

  3. Dahveed

    Wow, Rand Paul nails it! Apple followed the rules. Don’t beat them up if Congresses’ rules had unintended consequences. Its not Apples’ fault if congress didn’t think of how these rules would effect behavior.

    1. Yup, the taxes consequences of the code were intended though imo – it’s all for political theatre.

  4. bajageoff

    It is not often I agree with Sen Paul but he is right on the money here. Congress created the monster that is the tax legislation. Their time should be spent fixing it rather than conducting a witch hunt in the IRS for attempting to administer the monstrosity.

    1. I am curios what it is that you disagree with him about.

      1. bajageoff

        To begin with I disagree with his opposition to the Civil Rights Act and his reasons for opposing it.

        1. To begin with I disagree with his opposition to the Civil Rights Act and his reasons for opposing it.

          What particular statement that he has made about the Civil Rights Act is a problem for you? I hear this type of general commentary all the time but usually find that the people who make it are clueless about his position on it. I suspect that you are not very different.

          1. bajageoff

            The comment he made that private businesses such as restaurants shouldn’t have been required to integrate, but rather the market should have been what determined whether the business integrated.
            As for you believing, on no basis, that I am clueless about his position, I am not surprised. People of your ilk have a propensity to believe just about anything without a sound basis.

          2. The comment he made that private businesses such as restaurants shouldn’t have been required to integrate, but rather the market should have been what determined whether the business integrated.

            What is wrong with that? Should Orthodox Jewish businesses have to hire Gentiles to serve their Jewish clients? Why should German bakeries have to hire black, Asian, or French workers if they do not wish to? Private businesses are private. There is no justification to have government tell them who to hire, what to pay, etc.

            As for you believing, on no basis, that I am clueless about his position, I am not surprised. People of your ilk have a propensity to believe just about anything without a sound basis.

            Well you are clueless about something. That something seems to be economics and ethics. Being ignorant of his position would have been better.

          3. bajageoff

            The issue was not whether you agree with me. It was whether I understood his position. Your response confirmed that I did.

          4. bagageoff,

            So people who own and operate a privately run business can’t choose how to run that business? Congressmen and senators know better?

            Do liberty and property rights mean so little to you?

            The issue was not whether you agree with me.

            As Vangel pointed out, the very point is whether or not you understand the economics and ethics of the situation. As to the ethics, it is clear you do not: people don’t get to decide how they run and operate a business, but must be told how by their betters, like you, right?

            As to the economics, it is clear you do not as well. If I open a business and refuse to hire or serve blacks, others will (it’s called free markets and competition). I can either live with the reduced profit margin, possibly bankruptcy, or I can change my business habits. Do you understand that? If not, it is clear you do not understand the basics of economics.

    2. I’m not so sure it is broken. I believe it does exactly what Congress intends it to do for its corporate moneybag donors. The curtain was only raised on this “theatre of outrage’ because Apple’s tax situation was getting exposure in the media.

      1. bajageoff

        Sure it was as you say. So how many millions does the USA pay to Congress who allow this situation to persist ? Perhaps if they stopped at ONE vote to repeal Obamacare instead of 37 or 38 or whatever stupid number it is up to, they might have time to address their small minds to a bigger issue.

        1. Sure it was as you say. So how many millions does the USA pay to Congress who allow this situation to persist ? Perhaps if they stopped at ONE vote to repeal Obamacare instead of 37 or 38 or whatever stupid number it is up to, they might have time to address their small minds to a bigger issue.

          Actually, Obamacare is such a disaster that even Democratic governors and unions have attacked it now that the election is over. It does not work and cannot work as sold to the voters. The way the law is written there is no way that people will be allowed to keep their plans and their own doctors because the incentive is to have their employers drop the plans entirely.

          The real problem with the US healthcare system is far too much regulation and far too little competition. Open up the sector to real competition and care would be far better and much cheaper than it is today. But rather than do that Congress has taken the path more travelled.

          1. bajageoff

            The real disaster is the American political system. Instead of wasting time passing votes to repeal Obamacare, why not propose changes that will improve it, or even a system to replace it?
            And it is a reflection on the ineffective political system that there is no bi-partisan effort to limit the impact of medical malpractice suits or to increase competition (without allowing it to become a race to the bottom).

          2. The real disaster is the American political system. Instead of wasting time passing votes to repeal Obamacare, why not propose changes that will improve it, or even a system to replace it?

            I agree. A repeal would be a good start. Letting people buy their insurance from out of state companies, and removing other barriers would be a better subsequent move.

            And it is a reflection on the ineffective political system that there is no bi-partisan effort to limit the impact of medical malpractice suits or to increase competition (without allowing it to become a race to the bottom).

            I have no problem with true malpractice suits. The problem isn’t those but the fact that the American legal system is broken and can make providers who do little wrong pay just because they have deep pockets.

          3. bajageoff,

            why not propose changes that will improve it

            Because it is not the place of congressmen, nor senators, to tell me how to force me to buy medical insurance. This type of idea is based on a very stupid idea. It’s akin to saying that poor people don’t have crappy cars because they don’t have good car insurance.

            Additionally, the federal government has no constitutional authority to do that.

  5. The hearings proved just how screwed up Republicans really are. While some, like Dr. Paul, are on the money, the establishment Republicans, who have thrown out the small-government Tea Party types out of committees, are showing that they are the same as the Democrats.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHBS3dUalPE

    I think that it is time for a huge shakeup that throws the big-government GOP leadership out on the street and puts into their place people who will stand on principle.

  6. Citizen Buddy

    It would have been constructive for Senate Committee to have had a hearing on improving the U.S. corporate tax structure instead. Bravo to Senator Paul.

    From the written testimony by Apple to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee:

    “Apple has always believed in the simple, not the complex. This is evident in the Company’s products and the way it conducts itself. In this spirit, Apple has recommended to the Obama Administration and several members of Congress – and suggests to the Subcommittee today – to pass legislation that dramatically simplifies the US corporate tax system. This
    comprehensive reform should:

    • Be revenue neutral;
    • Eliminate all corporate tax expenditures;
    • Lower corporate income tax rates; and
    • Implement a reasonable tax on foreign earnings that allows free movement of capital back to the US.

    Apple recognizes these and other improvements in the US corporate tax system may increase the Company’s taxes. Apple is not opposed to such a result if it occurs in the context of an overall improvement in efficiency, flexibility and competitiveness.”

    1. bajageoff

      If all corporate tax expenditures are eliminated, that means corporations will be taxed on gross revenues. Is AAPL happy with that, at even a small tax rate?

      1. Is AAPL happy with that, at even a small tax rate?

        Who are you asking? I’m not sure anyone outside of AAPL could answer that. But more importantly, you appear to be commenting on something about which you have little knowledge. Perhaps you should better understand what a corporate tax expenditure is before continuing.

        1. bajageoff

          As a CPA of 35 years experience I have a reasonable idea what corporate tax expenditures are. But feel free to confer your superior knowledge on me by explaining what they are.

          1. As a CPA of 35 years experience I have a reasonable idea what corporate tax expenditures are. But feel free to confer your superior knowledge on me by explaining what they are.

            Apparently, at least in your case, being a CPA for 35 years didn’t provide you with an understanding of what a tax expenditure is, as your comment indicated otherwise.

            You can easily look it up yourself, but I’ll give you this much: A corporate tax expenditure doesn’t refer to any and all tax deductions, but is generally a form of tax reduction offered as an incentive to specific companies for specific behavior, such as hiring the unemployed or opening facilities in a a particular state or city.

            Eliminating tax expenditures certainly doesn’t mean eliminating all tax deductions and taxing on gross revenue as you claimed in your comment.

            I would expect anyone as old as you must be to know that even without CPA experience.

          2. givemefreedom

            Ouch, I think that one left a mark.

            You beat me to the punch Ron H…….good on you.

          3. bajageoff

            I stand corrected. As a non American I fell for the trap of not realizing how Americans have adapted the English language.

          4. I fell for the trap of not realizing how Americans have adapted the English language.

            Translation: I claimed to know American law, when called on it and shown to be completely wrong, I change the subject and hope no one notices.

          5. Givemefreedom

            As a CPA of 35 years…….as a non American.

            Apparently you are a liar also Bajageoff. I doubt you’re either of the above.

          6. bajageoff

            Well you would be wrong on both counts, but should I give a damn what you think?

          7. givemefreedom

            “should I give a damn what you think?”

            No bajageoff you shouldn’t give a damn what I think. The important thing though is that now we all don’t give a damn what you post as you have been proven to be full of crap.

  7. Newsworthy liberals railing against Apple’s tax minimization: You should lead by example — refuse to itemize deductions on your personal and business tax returns — starting with home interest and property taxes. Progressives, kindly publish your notarized, independently audited tax returns online for all to see.

    Only THEN should people take seriously your indignity with Apple. Not before.

    1. Newsworthy liberals railing against Apple’s tax minimization: You should lead by example — refuse to itemize deductions on your personal and business tax returns — starting with home interest and property taxes. Progressives, kindly publish your notarized, independently audited tax returns online for all to see.

      Only THEN should people take seriously your indignity with Apple. Not before.

      LIBERALS? What about the GOPs choice in the 2008 election? On the issue of tax complexity and big government the GOP is not any different than the Democrats.

      1. A sweeping generalization that is not true, but does bring home a point. Some Republicans are interchangeable with Democrats — John McCain, for instance.

        It is too broad a condemnation to claim the two parties are equal. They are not. But neither are they polar opposites either. Sad but true.

        1. A sweeping generalization that is not true, but does bring home a point. Some Republicans are interchangeable with Democrats — John McCain, for instance.

          You are far too kind to the GOP. Look at someone like Paul Ryan, Romney’s choice for VP. His budget made no material cuts and was not all that different than Obama’s because he did not want to touch military spending. The GOP constantly ignores that military related activities cost more than the revenues that flow in from personal income taxes and glosses over the fact that American taxpayers are asked to subsidize companies that make equipment than even the military does not want and for the defence of rich Western countries that should pay for their own defence.

          It is too broad a condemnation to claim the two parties are equal. They are not. But neither are they polar opposites either. Sad but true.

          When it comes to the size of government and civil liberty issues there is not much of a difference. Both sides can talk a good game but when it comes down to it they both support the growth of the warfare and welfare state. Which is why a third party alternative is required.

  8. Che is dead

    What Apple is really guilty of is following the law.

    If Steve Jobs had received his original backing from some mobster(s) and had had a corrupt former spook set up an offshore tax dodge for his company, Obama would be searching the company roster for cabinet secretaries:

    “Did you know that in the early 1970s, the Internal Revenue Service investigated the Pritzker family, whose scion Penny Pritzker has just been tapped by President Obama to become Secretary of Commerce, because their Hyatt Corporation was paying no taxes? And that in the course of the inquiry, an IRS statement quoted an informant with access to the records of the offshore bank where they hid their assets that the family, “through their Hyatt Corporation, received their initial backing from organized crime”?

    Did you know that this particular financial institution, Castle Bank & Trust of the Bahamas, was founded by a veteran of the wartime spy agency the Office of Strategic Services who specialized in creating front organizations for the CIA, and helped launder funds for attempts to overthrow Fidel Castro? That Castle operated by arranging for a Miami bank controlled by associates of mobster Meyer Lansky to accept the original deposits, which it then passed on to Castle with only code numbers, but not names, attached? …” — The Nation

    Read the whole thing – unbelievable. Meyer Lansky, Al Capone … she’s a natural for a high-level post in a Democrat administration.

    “The Senate will finally confront one of the architects of the subprime mortgage crisis today, hauling a tax-dodging, union-busting, bank-breaking, billionaire member of the “one percent” before the Senate Commerce Committee… to consider her confirmation as Secretary of Commerce in President Barack Obama’s Cabinet.” — Breitbart, Big Government

  9. bajageoff

    Yeah…and their worst crime was to inflict White Castle meat on the US people. Not only rascist, but yuk!

    1. Do you even know what you are talking about? Or as a non-American do you simply not understand the how to properly communicate in english?

      1. bajageoff

        Ken, in case it didn’t occur to you, my comment was made in an (obviously unsuccessful in your case) attempt at a little humour. (The spelling of the last word in the previous sentence might give you a clue as to my understanding of English).
        And judging by the mangled English in your comment, I suspect I have a better grasp of the language than do you.

        1. givemefreedom

          Here are some examples of your grasp of the language:

          https://twitter.com/Bajageoff

          Ice picks in peoples heads, bullets for people. Nice rants Bajageoff, more proof that you are full of crap and have no credibility.

          1. givemefreedom

            A liar you are Bajageoff. You said that you are a CPA with 35 years experience, but on twitter you call yourself a retired Chartered Accountant. Not the same designation.

            Even a CA should know what is meant by corporate tax expenditures. Is the CA title another lie? Or are you just a very bad CA/CPA/whatever?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content